August 2009 Archives

NOBODY could blame the Scottish Government and its farmers for wanting to protect its cattle's health and image from the horrors lurking south of the border.

Scotland feels the carefully-honed image of wholesome, Scottish beef is being tainted by a disease problem found almost exclusively in England and Wales.

It wants to protect the reputation of the product and its export markets while, at the same time, putting up barriers to disease coming form the south, by securing Officially Tuberculosis Free status.

It is, at face value, a logical step reflecting their exasperation at the failure of those down south, particularly in Westminster, to get to grips with the problem.

It is also entirely consistent with the desire of the Scottish Government to forge its own destiny, independently of London, wherever it can, across the political arena.

As one English industry leader said this week, 'we would probably do the same thing if we were in the same position'.

But it is clear the possible implications of the move, and the details of exactly what rules will accompany the new status, still need to be addressed very carefully.

The danger is that by loading extra requirements, in terms of TB testing, on to farmers in England and Wales, the flow of cattle northwards across the border will slow.

Who knows whether there will be a knock on effect for Scottish abattoirs, livestock markets and farmers on both sides of the border, as some are predicting?

Or whether, as NFU Scotland suggests, the trade will continue in the same volumes as today but in a different way?

It is therefore vital that in the months before the policy is likely to become reality, every effort is taken to evaluate the implications and that the industry seeks to mitigate any problems, because there is little value in solving one problem, only to create another.

So, for the second week running the Government has produced a big, brazen advert for the wider adoption of genetically modified food.

Defra and the Food Standards Agency have bought out a report that warns unless the EU gets its act together and starts approving the importation of more GM crops for animal feed, meat production in the UK could reach crisis point.

According to the Government, it really is THAT serious.

The report said in a worse case scenario, Europe's anti-GM stance could push the price of feed up by more than 300 per cent.

It said if the price of feed did rise by that much it could force up to 68 per cent of poultry producers and 29 per cent of pig producers out of business.

Not to mention the effect on the red meat and dairy sectors.

Furthermore it said supermarket prices would spiral and the balance of trade on meat would deteriorate measurably.  

But is GM food safe, Mr Benn?

Well, last week the Government put out another big advert for GM when Hilary Benn said there was absolutely 'no evidence' to suggest GM food carried any health issue.

Today more than 114 million hectares are planted with GM crops around the world and it is estimated more than 200 billion meals containing biotech ingredients have been eaten by hundreds of millions of people, with no health issue.

Ultimately though, Mr Benn said the consumer would decide whether the technology would become a mainstay on supermarket shelves.

And they seem to be coming round too.

According to the latest survey of attitudes from the Food Standards Agency spontaneous (ie unprompted) concern in relation to GM technology has fallen to 4 per cent from a peak of 20 per cent in December 2003.

This will please a government which seems to have become a bona fide GM PR machine.

In Whitehall the question is no longer about whether we want to embrace GM technology, it is about how long can we live without it.

I have just spotted a great comment on the news story 'Farming can deliver on food security - CLA' on our home page.

A chap whose signature name is 'If only I were PM' points out how desperate times are when the industry has to point out that 'farmers can produce food'.

I am inclined to agree.  

Having to point out that farmers can deliver on food security is about as useful as saying car manufacturers can deliver transport solutions.

Not really rocket science.  

But somehow it has taken more than a dozen Defra Ministers a dozen years to make the connection between food and farming.

Finally, last week Hilary Benn said he wanted British farmers 'to produce as much food as possible'. After a decade of falling production he said British farmers held the key to sustainable food production. At last! But will he act on his rhetoric?

It is important that farmers hold him to his comments or he might forget and go back to thinking food is grown by leprechauns.      

EID is a subject which has dominated discussions within the sheep industry for well over a year now and still, the vast majority of farmers are confused as to what it means and how it will affect them.

Horribly confused about the issue myself, I went down to Defra yesterday (Monday, August 17) to sit down with Terry Gurnhill, who heads up the team hoping to implement an incredibly complicated set of proposals.

And I certainly don't envy them.

With the various industry groups all taking different positions on how to implement the regulations, it is made so much harder.

In particular, discussion now centres around slaughter tags and whether or not these should be electronic or manual.

The Livestock Auctioneers Association (LAA) has called for an electronic tag, warning market prices could suffer as many breeders may refuse to buy sheep they will have to read manually.

Others such as the NFU have said this would impose too great a burden on farmers, having to pay around 40p extra a tag.

The LAA's argument however is that the 40p extra is nothing compared to the drop in prices if those buyers stop buying.

The intricacies of the argument aside - and there are many - one thing is for sure, the industry has to come to some sort of agreement.

It was clear from the discussion with Defra that they are trying to draw up legislation that makes EID as easy as possible within the framework of the EU's directorate.

That's not easy, and it first needs a concensus from industry.

Failing that, Defra will have to make the final decision and the result could be a policy that pleases everyone.

Or it could please nobody.

It would also delay the process, meaning the legislation may not be drawn up until October or November, leaving little time for farmers to get their heads round these onerous regulations.

Surely, it is better that the industry gets together and finds a workable solution, rather than fighting over detail and making the whole process harder on the farmers who will be forced to obey the rules.

Finally, we are up and running!

Welcome to the FG news blog - a daily look at news affecting the farming sector from the Farmers Guardian news team.

We've been talking about this on the news desk for some time and now, here it is!

We'll be taking a look at all the latest stories, from the hot debates affecting the industry to the more quirky stories hitting the headlines.

We're still working on the name, so feel free to give us some of your suggestions...